- MOST MOVIES are done by committee
- If their is to be micromanaging, better it be by people who have passion and care for the material. Unlike the uncaring suits of other studios that Marvel gave away it's properties to.
- Superheroes' main audience are kids and young adults
- What trivial elements pray tell?
- Celebrates mediocrity? That's a very bold and verging on arrogant statement

During my childhood superhero comics publishers were directly "pandering" to a younger audience (me!), so I celebrate Feige and company's attempts to wrest these characters away from the adults-only mentality it had fallen into. And if younger me was informed that by the time I was an adult there would be a series of well made, big budget, interconnected superhero movies for me and my family to enjoy, younger me's head would have exploded all over my latest issue of Marvel Two In One.

During my childhood superhero comics publishers were directly "pandering" to a younger audience (me!), so I celebrate Feige and company's attempts to wrest these characters away from the adults-only mentality it had fallen into. And if younger me was informed that by the time I was an adult there would be a series of well made, big budget, interconnected superhero movies for me and my family to enjoy, younger me's head would have exploded all over my latest issue of Marvel Two In One.

With the recent reports of Thor, it sounds like they are going for the more more Twilight heavy demographics. It definitely received a bump in the female viewership from what I've gathered. Infuse that with the prevalent humor and you alienate the audiences looking for a bit more sophistication. Nothing wrong with that, but it's just not my cup of tea.

I can agree with that. It is what it is. Marvel is not the only culprit in this.

But what has deterred me is Feige's arrogance with respect to how he has treated his directors. Plus, why are you going to bring in big time actors and give them nothing to work with? Portman's character was the most vapid, listless character I had seen from her since THE PREQUELS. She was given nothing to work with. That's probably on Branagh at the end of the day, and they obviously got rid of him, but I didn't come out of that feeling like it was a Branagh film. The Shakespeare element was nonexistent. All I got was some bull **** character like Darcy to make the material accessible to young audiences, and a supporting cast that was absolute dead weight, aside from Hopkins. And now Skarsgaard's character is apparently comic relief, which is quite funny because I can imagine him quipping with his pants down (haven't seen TDW obviously so I don't know how that played out exactly).

Then the fiasco with Patty Jenkins, and to go with Taylor, which seemed like a fine choice from the outset (I love Game of Thrones), but humor isn't exactly what comes to mind when I think of that series. I think of a big time character driven, drama piece which seems lacking with these reviews.

I thought IM3 was a small step in the right direction, but that kind of directing suits the material and RDJ's talent. The comedy is not awkwardly placed for a summer blockbuster either. It was an entertaining followup to Avengers. But here we are in mid November, when the awards season heats up, and Marvel can't aim for something higher, with an accaimed producer/writer responsible for a season of the best series on TV right now? Am I asking for too much? Seems like the critics chewed on TDW for a bit and will **** it out well before the week's end. Does every film need to be an action/comedy now? No, absolutely not.

Iron Man 3 was the most underwhelming sequel/follow up I've ever seen in my life. Iron Man 3 is The Phantom Menace of the MCU. The guy faced off against gods and aliens in the last movie only to be followed up by a butthurt ex-fanboy. You'd think after 2 corporate non-threatening villains and after finally proving his worth as a real superhero when the time finally came you'd think he'd be facing bigger stuff like the real Mandarin.

The most entertaining aspect of a superhero film is the overcoming of obstacles like defeating the bad guy. Even if they decided to go with that silly twist, the least they could have done was develop Aldrich Killian's character into a legitimate villain who gets finished off by the titular character. Shane Black committed a cardinal sin here with what he did here and what he planned to do and I hope to god he never touches a comic book movie.

Iron Man 3 was the most underwhelming sequel/follow up I've ever seen in my life. Iron Man 3 is The Phantom Menace of the MCU. The guy faced off against gods and aliens in the last movie only to be followed up by a butthurt ex-fanboy. You'd think after 2 corporate non-threatening villains and after finally proving his worth as a real superhero when the time finally came you'd think he'd be facing bigger stuff like the real Mandarin.

The most entertaining aspect of a superhero film is the overcoming of obstacles like defeating the bad guy. Even if they decided to go with that silly twist, the least they could have done was develop Aldrich Killian's character into a legitimate villain who gets finished off by the titular character. Shane Black committed a cardinal sin here with what he did here and what he planned to do and I hope to god he never touches a comic book movie.

hahahaha, you're kidding right? Phantom Menace of the MCU? This one of the most entertaining films of the MCU, and a super terrorist isn't a big enough threat?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by childeroland

Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?

Iron Man 3 was the most underwhelming sequel/follow up I've ever seen in my life. Iron Man 3 is The Phantom Menace of the MCU. The guy faced off against gods and aliens in the last movie only to be followed up by a butthurt ex-fanboy. You'd think after 2 corporate non-threatening villains and after finally proving his worth as a real superhero when the time finally came you'd think he'd be facing bigger stuff like the real Mandarin.

You can't be serious. So monopolizing a global conflict, all while having a reproducible super soldier formula isn't threatening? If anything, Killian came as close, if not closer, to world domination as Loki did, not to mention that he stripped Tony down far more than any of his previous adversaries had.

As for your other point, I have to wonder if you feel that way about other franchises. Lex Luthor, another boring corporate villain, as you put it, will inevitably make an appearance in Man of Steel's continuity. What's your take on that? Thor didn't just save the known universe, but existence as well, and he'll be taking on an A.I. in the next Avengers film. What then? Let's not forget that Supes saved the planet from a platoon of gods himself. Going bigger isn't necessarily better; get some perspective.

I get that you dislike the movie, but at least be reasonable about your criticisms...and consistent. IM3 had its issues, but the stakes not being high enough most certainly weren't one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallville fan

The most entertaining aspect of a superhero film is the overcoming of obstacles like defeating the bad guy.

That's an oversimplification. If it were in any way true, then Transformers would be the benchmark for all action/superhero films. You can't nail down a genre movie to such a simplistic concept; there are far too many variables that contribute to entertainment as well, and movies are, as well as any other fiction-based medium, about the sum of all their parts rather than just the individual pieces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallville fan

Even if they decided to go with that silly twist, the least they could have done was develop Aldrich Killian's character into a legitimate villain who gets finished off by the titular character. Shane Black committed a cardinal sin here with what he did here and what he planned to do and I hope to god he never touches a comic book movie.

Again, I don't see how you can say something like that. Killian's plans and end-state were one of the more original ideas in the genre as of late, and while I agree that he could have used some more development and originality with regard to his character, he was far from being the irrelevant villain that you seem to be suggesting. What cardinal sin are you even referring to? There's too much inaccuracy, generalization, vagueness, and hyperbole in your assessment for it to be taken very seriously.

Iron Man 3 was the most underwhelming sequel/follow up I've ever seen in my life. Iron Man 3 is The Phantom Menace of the MCU. The guy faced off against gods and aliens in the last movie only to be followed up by a butthurt ex-fanboy. You'd think after 2 corporate non-threatening villains and after finally proving his worth as a real superhero when the time finally came you'd think he'd be facing bigger stuff like the real Mandarin.

The most entertaining aspect of a superhero film is the overcoming of obstacles like defeating the bad guy. Even if they decided to go with that silly twist, the least they could have done was develop Aldrich Killian's character into a legitimate villain who gets finished off by the titular character. Shane Black committed a cardinal sin here with what he did here and what he planned to do and I hope to god he never touches a comic book movie.

I take it you didn't see Iron Man 2. I, and many people I know, were happy with Iron Man 3 and the way it made Tony vulnerable. Now do I think it could have been better? Of course but I left the theater with my hopes high for the future of the continuity, whereas I left with my standards substantially lowered from 2. I mean really, the movie was campy, boring, overly cluttered with pointless character and hokey subplots. At least Iron Man 3 was fast paced and while it had a sense of humor, it wasn't uncomfortably trying to tone down the techno realism to make way for Supersoldiers and gods.

Also "The Phantom Menace" argument isn't a good one. If you go over the Star Wars threads there's a bunch of hopeless cases that will defend that movies genius to their last breath. Anyway I'll admit if I was a bigger fan of the Iron Man comics I could see myself being more disappointed with Iron Man 3 than I am, so I'll give you that.

Iron Man 3 was the most underwhelming sequel/follow up I've ever seen in my life. Iron Man 3 is The Phantom Menace of the MCU. The guy faced off against gods and aliens in the last movie only to be followed up by a butthurt ex-fanboy. You'd think after 2 corporate non-threatening villains and after finally proving his worth as a real superhero when the time finally came you'd think he'd be facing bigger stuff like the real Mandarin.

The most entertaining aspect of a superhero film is the overcoming of obstacles like defeating the bad guy. Even if they decided to go with that silly twist, the least they could have done was develop Aldrich Killian's character into a legitimate villain who gets finished off by the titular character. Shane Black committed a cardinal sin here with what he did here and what he planned to do and I hope to god he never touches a comic book movie.

That's the genius in Black's creative decisions. He progressed Tony into a vulnerable human being deathly afraid of cosmic beings, yet the greatest threat to him came from a mere man. I didn't like the corporate aspect of the Mandarin at first, though his manipulation of the US makes up for it slightly.

What makes Black's decision a "cardinal sin?"

@Kang: Some of the stuff you mention can be used to great effect in getting an audience to hate the villain. I don't expect to see lucid, starved peasants sitting at a cannibal's feast in any Marvel film, granted. Or prisoners taken by, say, Loki or Thanos hanging themselves to escape the brutality of their captors.

__________________
Goku Lands on Namek CEO
...no king but the King in the North whose name is BRADY...

Thor, Captain America, Iron Man 2, and Iron Man 3 were pretty generic. Ironman however felt like it was a political commentary and corporate espionage film before a superhero movie, just as Incredible Hulk (flawed as it was) felt more like a conspiracy thriller than a generic superhero flick. For 2008 that was breaking some massive ground. The Avengers did what DC had written off as impossible for years and did so without taking the X-Men focus on Wolverine style copout. Being said each film feels like it's of it's own and isn't just a cookie cutter plot, so while the stories may be a bit bland they're always fun and aside from Iron Man 2 (in my opinion) they all have heart. So I wouldn't go bashing them.

Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.

2017 Spidey reboot ideasThe following post is my opinion so take it as you will.

I could make the same thread about James Bond or Pixar movies and most people wouldn't bat an eye. The MCU movies are far from perfect, but if they weren't doing something right, then they still wouldn't be making movies right now.

I actually thought IM3 was only slightly better than IM2. I didnt mind the Mandarin reveal. I was more annoyed that it didnt really seem like The Ten Rings group was the same as the first movie.

I've been told by knitpicky fans that I'm completely wrong but Iron Man will never be the same as he was in the first movie. The first film was set in a realistic world that taught audiences to suspend their disbelief by introducing the advanced tech from the beginning of the film. The universe was ordinary but the technology was extraordinary, and such relevant under currents made it a winner. The problem however was that Thor couldn't exist in this world, nor could the jumpsuit adorned agents of SHIELD (rather than their suited Coulson contemporaries), this is just pushing the suspension of disbelief. So the atmosphere had to change and in Iron Man 2 they really had no idea how to do that. I was satisfied with Iron Man 3 because I thought it was a decent Iron Man story that worked in the confides of the MCU.

Oh and before any of you tell me Iron Man was not realistic because Tony should have died when he crashed into the desert, in the Dark Knight Batman and Rachel should have been all sorts of splattered and broken when they slammed onto that car from like 60 stories up and you all call that movie hyper real!

Marvel's villains suck, it's true. I don't even have the love for Loki that most do (I enjoy him as a character, but I don't see him as some great villain at all).

Thankfully, it just so happens that I watch these things for the heroes and not the villains (with the exception of Batman), and I do NOT subscribe to the old mantra that "a hero is only as good as his villain," so this is a flaw that doesn't really bother me. Most of my favorite CBM's had unremarkable villains, but great journeys for their heroes, and I still think they're great movies in general, so whatever.

__________________

"They say: sufferings are misfortunes...Once we're thrown off our habitual paths, we think all is lost; but it's only here that the new and good begins.

As long as there's life, there's happiness. There's much, much still to come."